[antimedia] antimedia: Reuters *still* doesn't get it....

[Email subscription to blog articles]

Posted by antimedia:
Reuters *still* doesn't get it....
http://www.antimedia.us/posts/1155146762.shtml


   ....offering [1]lame explanations for why the photos were altered.

     Gary Hershorn, a photo editor for Reuters, explained today why the
     news agency withdrew two altered photos, and then hundreds of
     others by the same photographer, earlier this week â and also
     described Reuterâs policy on Photoshopping images.
     Hershorn, whose title is news pictures editor for North America,
     said he did not believe the freelance photographer, Adnan Hajjânow
     dismissed by the agencyâmade his changes for political effect. "I
     believe he was trying to take a picture and make it better rather
     than trying to take a picture and make a statement," Hershorn told
     National Public Radio in an interview aired today.
     That doctored picture showed thick, black smoke rising over
     buildings in Beirut after an Israeli airstrike, while the original
     had less smoke and a lighter tone overall. Bloggers had posted
     observations that it looked like a Photoshop âcloningâ tool was
     used.
     The second photo showed an Israeli jet releasing three flares â
     while the original photo showed one flare.
     Referring to the smoke photo, Hershorn told NPR, "This one slipped
     through the system. It just came in. A photo editor looked at it
     and coded it and sent it to our clients."
     He explained, "a photographer is never allowed to change content.
     Reuters has zero tolerance to doctoring photos this way. You can't
     add information; you can't take away things."

   I'd like Hershorn to explain how adding smoke and building to a shot
   "makes it better" without making any sort of political statement. How
   does adding extra flares to a shot of an Israeli jet and calling them
   "rockets" make the picture "better"? If, by "better", Hershorn means
   "more dramatic", then certainly that's the case, but why would a
   fauxtographer want to make a picture more dramatic? I can only think
   of two reasons - to have a better chance of selling the photo or to
   increase the impact of the photo. The first explaination makes no
   sense in the case of Hajj, because he wasn't shooting on spec. He was
   employed by Reuters.
   Reuters' "zero tolerance policy" apparently needs some adjustment as
   well, since these two fakes "slipped through the system." Hershorn
   admits that a photo editor looked at the photos, so how did they "slip
   through"? Either the photo editor is incompetent, or the photo editor
   saw nothing wrong with letting the fakes "slip through". Either should
   be a firing offense, yet no one has been fired. Some zero tolerance
   policy! It works like this. If you catch us, we have zero tolerance.
   By the way, Reuters has still not admitted that Rusty Shackleford
   uncovered the second fraud. They claimed, in their explanation, that
   [2]they found it. That is a lie.
   Apparently, even when they are caught red-handed, the folks at Reuters
   can't find it within themselves to tell the truth.

References

   1. http://editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1002952394&imw=Y
   2. http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/184230.php